| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Member | ||
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that an upgrade of his UD to a GD would allow him to obtain medical benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). He states that he is in constant pain and discomfort making it impossible for him to work or do activities. He further states that while serving in the Army, he was an impressionable teenager who made bad decisions. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 23 June 1971, the applicant was inducted into the Army for a period of two years. He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12A (Pioneer).
The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and it confirms that highest rank he attained while on active duty was private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3). However, the record does reveal an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following two occasions for the offense indicated: 1 June 1972, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; and
24 November 1972, for stealing property valued at $20.00 and larceny. In addition, on 17 October 1972, he was convicted of stealing the merchandise of another soldier valued at $10.00 by a summary court-martial.
On 15 February 1973, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the following offenses: striking a commissioned officer in the execution of his duties on the head with his fist and on the thigh with his foot; assaulting a superior noncommissioned officer in the execution of his duties by hitting him in the face, head, and stomach with his fists; and by being disrespectful in language toward a superior noncommissioned officer in the execution of his duties.
On 5 March 1973, after consulting with legal counsel and being advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum allowable punishment under the UCMJ, and the possible effects of an UD, the applicant voluntarily requested to be discharged for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.
On 24 March 1973, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge request and directed that he be issued an UD, and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. On 9 April 1973, he was discharged accordingly. At the time of his discharge, the applicant had completed a total of 1 year, 9 months, and 17 days of active military service.
On 19 May 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board determined the applicant’s discharge had been proper and equitable, and it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded because at the time he was young, impressionable, and he made a lot of mistakes; and that he now needs an upgrade in order to receive medical care from the DVA. However, the Board finds these factors alone are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief in light of his disciplinary history and undistinguished record of service.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The Board notes that after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the stipulated offense(s) under the UCMJ.
3. The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process and that the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.
4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__RVO__ __MKP _ __AAO __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076225 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/01 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19730409 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200 CH 10. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In Lieu of trial by CM |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091471C070212
However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge. The applicant's records indicate that the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge in 1974 and that this Board denied his petition to upgrade his discharge in 1975. In 1981 the Army Discharge Review Board again denied his request to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021193
Accordingly, he was discharged on 30 May 1973. On 7 August 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board, after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence determined he was properly discharged and denied his request for an upgrade. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate at the time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029014
The separation authority could direct a general discharge if such a discharge was merited by the Soldier's overall record. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001759
His record does not show any achievements or acts of special recognition during his military service. On 19 January 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and provided an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000918
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to an honorable discharge. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008604C071113
On 22 September 1976, the convening authority approved the sentence and the record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for review by the Army Court of Military Review. On 14 March 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. There is no credible evidence in the applicant’s record, nor has he presented any evidence, to warrant the requested relief based on error or injustice in the court-martial process.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085699C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. The record confirms that the ADRB considered and denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge in 1974, after it concluded his discharge was both proper and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000659C071029
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The application submitted in this case is dated 3 January 2007. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070011242
On 10 July 1972, The United States Army Court of Military Review denied the petition of the applicant for a grant of review. In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to set aside a conviction. Evidence of record shows that the applicant had a history of misconduct to include two Article 15s, one Summary Court-Martial, one Special Court-Martial, and one General...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070002628
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The DD Form 214 the applicant was issued at the time of his discharge confirms he was discharged with an undesirable discharge. Records show that the applicant voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.